Canoe and Kayak Criminal Rescue Safety Scam: 1500 Canadian
and American Adults and Children Die Agonizing Deaths Since 1993

Tim Ingram

Copyright 2006, Tim Ingram
All rights reserved.
No part of this book shall be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or
transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording,
or
otherwise, without written permission from the author.

One curious aspect of this fraud is its' obvious nature: "There are
many solo rescues available to kayakers, the Eskimo roll being the most
famous and effective. It's also the hardest." Canoe and Kayak Magazine,
Kayak
Touring, 2001, p.53. This statement is intrinsically contradictory
in reference to any concept of rescue. And of course this stupid statement
is contradicted below, by all of the many rescues that are needed as well,
because of the failure-prone nature of the Eskimo roll. (At the annual
Rolling
Championships in Greenland, the World Champs need a rescue powerboat
or they die, since they fail to save themselves so often! (Sea Kayaker
Magazine, Feb. 2001, p.41) Of course, after rolling once, the
expert is merely in the same capsizing conditions again. How intelligent
is that?

"A capsized paddler who Eskimo rolls is still in the same conditions
that capsized him or her in the first place, and with each roll he or she
will take on more water, lessening the kayak's stability." (Matt Broze,
Deep
Trouble, p.91)

" In this book I would like to emphasize rescue techniques other than
the Eskimo roll because a backup technique is mandatory...given that relatively
few sea kayakers will ever roll successfully and because workable alternative
techniques are too often neglected...The great advantage of the Sea Wing
(sponsons) is that it leaves the paddler in a more stable position than
before the capsize." (John Dowd, Sea Kayaking, 3rd edition, 1997,
pp.90-95)

The most "effective" rescue is the one that saves lives. It
cannot be "hardest", hard, difficult or failure-prone in any way.
Like CO2 sponsons that are manufactured identically to Coast Guard approved
CO2 inflatable PFDs! That create a Level Flotation Standard rescue platform
for all canoes and kayaks. (A rescue platform that can be paddled to rescue
numerable victims from the water. Some Coast Guard and rescue organizations
in the world use short, "recreational" kayaks with sponsons, carried aboard
fast Zodiac powercraft that are vulnerable close to rocky coastlines. The
short sponsoned kayak is paddled among the rocks, cockpit fully flooded
for maximum water ballast, to quickly clip the victims to fore and aft
decks. Then it is paddled back to the Zodiac. (This superior rescue craft,
that is excellent for tricky, broken ice rescues too, costs about $500
US.)

Very good examples of the evidence for criminal fraud are found on pages
117-132 of "Canoe and Kayak Scam Kills 1000 Americans: US Coast Guard
Studies Device to Save Victims".

"We can start this chapter by examining a recent sea kayaking book that
is conspicuous for having absolutely no references to sponsons, despite
this book acknowledging many dangerous situations for which almost all
other authors have suggested sponsons! This person, according to the American
Canoe Association's magazine "Paddler", was responsible for some
of the ACA's ideas about sea kayaking.

John Lull, Sea Kayaking Safety and Rescue, 2001:

"If you capsize and can't perform an Eskimo roll or fail to execute
your roll, your only recourse...is to exit the kayak and then reenter.
Because a partly swamped kayak is highly unstable...With the aid of another
boater, the process of emptying water from the boat and reentering is relatively
easy." (p.47.) Bait.

"Don't let go until the rescued paddler...is ready to go. I've seen
a paddler immediately capsize again after being rescued...The rescue had
to be performed all over again, and the swimmer was very cold by the time
it was over." (p.57) Switch.

In capsizing conditions, what determines that the "rescued paddler...is
ready to go"? (It has taken ten pages of this book, as you see, to arrive
at this: from "relatively easy" as Bait to "immediately capsize again"
as Switch.)

$25 C02 Sponsons inflate in a second, with no training or previous
experience, to get out of deadly waters and stay out!

What prevents re-capsize in the same conditions,
a situation that has killed hundreds since 1993? (See Sea Kayaker Magazine
article below.) Ready to avoid another life-threatening
capsize. How does anyone determine this realistically? The victim is already
wet and more tired than before. But above all, the victim is not
in a more stable, secure or safe condition than before capsize. There
is no stabilizing life raft. Why not?

If human life were valued, then a canoe or kayak CO2 life raft to paddle
to shore, (and pick up other victims), no matter what, entirely flooded
or not, would be necessary.

This is what killed the 4 schoolchidren in the UK, as well as hundreds
of others. No means of stabilizing sea kayaks (or canoes) in emergencies!
The assisted rescues above, in this book, are criticized for many reasons:
The kayak is too heavy to lift over another one, these rescues must be
practised a lot for any chance at working, these rescues that might appear
to "work" in swimming pools are not reliable in waves and cold waters of
the real world, etc.

Bait (assisted rescue), and Switch (everthing must work perfectly for
success): So the victim is blamed for the failure, and any deaths.

Runaway Kayak:

"Have the swimmer climb onto your rear deck and lie prone,...Don't use
this method unless you have good bracing skills and a solid roll, otherwise
you may end up in the water too." (p.63)

(See Death of Jim Heil, Grand Rapids Press, Sept 14, 2002). And the
posthumous award by Canada's Governor General to another victim of this,
Mark Seltzer of Toronto, Ontario. See the Death at the Apostle Islands,
Sea
Kayaker, August, 2005, p.50, for a Wisconsin family. The Father tried
to save his son on the rear deck. But we know this is no way to save a
human life! They capsized and of course hypothermia eventually killed another
victim, who was deliberately denied a means to escape the water. This idea
has killed hundreds of Canadians and Americans who have taken intruction
since 1993! Think about the 23 girls, ages 9-11, children
in 2005, nearly dead,at the Apostle Islands
in 2005, (mentioned below, from the
Professional Paddlesports Association,
same home address as the
American Canoe Association. These People
know that they are murdering innocent citizens, even children!)

This instruction idea has killed many people.

"This is a marginal solution...It might be a reasonable choice if you
are close enough to shore that you can carry the swimmer to safety should
you fail to catch up to the runaway kayak." (pp. 63-64)

(Why not stabilize the rescuer's kayak so that it becomes capable of
rescuing the victim?)

Obviously as the author says, the runaway kayak is unlikely to be caught,
and some type of emergency sponsons to enable both victim and rescuer to
paddle to shore would be commonsense, avoiding deaths. But the author unrealistically
contradicts himself with a Bait (more practice) and Switch
("swimmer and kayak need to be reunited to avoid serious consequences...Capsizing
at sea can be a traumatic experience..." p.64)

So why no built-in 5 second life raft capable of getting rescuer and
at least one swimmer to shore?

Apparently there is an endless list of Switches to go with the "rescue"
Bait: "If you discover a technique that works well for you, use it. Just
make sure it works in wind and rough water." (p.66)

The world is waiting to find out what this
"rescue" would be, since Mr. Lull has no suggestion in an entire book!
Bait and Switch canoe and kayak rescues are very deadly. Instead of standard,
built-in, uniform safety that is not dependent on hundreds of different
variables: including conditions, fitness, and practice, to mention only
three.

(These ideas constitute criminal negligence by deliberately depriving
both rescuer and victim of a simple means to stabilize the rescuer's kayak
to get both rescuer and victim to shore safely.)

Self-Rescues:

"The ability to perform a self-recue is an essential safety skill for
all sea kayakers...A partly swamped kayak is unstable; it is difficult
to climb back into the cockpit without some way to stabilize the boat.
The best solution is to climb in underwater and roll up...Of course this
will only work if you can perform an Eskimo roll...Another option...However,
due to it's (sic) greater complexity, the paddlefloat rescue is not as
practical in wind and rough water as a reentry roll." (p.69)

Of course the paddlefloat rescue originally was supposed to be a back-up
for failed Eskimo rolls. The question here to be asked: How does the paddler
not re-capsize after a reenty roll when the kayak is obviously partly swamped
and unstable, as the author said above: "Because a partly swamped kayak
is highly unstable..." (p.47)

You need to go to p.82 before you find the Switch on the reentry
roll Bait: "The kayak will be unstable until most of the water is
pumped out, so be ready to brace or roll again."

(Note that it has already been documented in Sea Kayaker Magazine
and elsewhere, that a pump and sprayskirt do not permit you to pump out
the water!)

This is called a "rescue" (Bait), but as we see on p.82, it is
actually a dangerous Switch, reported by the author to be safer
than a paddlefloat rescue. Actually the kayak is full of water, unstable,
and likely to re-capsize! So this instruction is actually deadly and misleading
compared to a CO2 sponson Life raft that two girls, 7 and 10 can operate
without any previous experience!

A final note: "Once you know how to roll, learn the reentry roll and
make it your primary rescue." (p.86) This book is sold to the public. It
is no wonder that one thousand US deaths have occurred. This book at least
recognizes that the paddlefloat is not a realistic rescue, just as Canoe
and Kayak Magazine, and Sea Kayaker Magazine printed in 1993!

Mr. Lull's book not only does not mention sponsons, his position in
this book is as dangerous as the ACA instruction: Leaving victims in the
water to die with no means of escape.

Let's go to Sea Kayaking, by John Dowd, 1997. Mr. Dowd has much
more open ocean experience than other authors. He started both the Trade
Association of Sea Kayaking in 1989, and Sea Kayaker Magazine before
that. I last saw him at the US Military Kayakers symposium in 1994, where
he recommended sponsons, just as the military kayakers had done in their
evaluation. He is very familiar with the folding kayaks used by miltary
forces. As well as the use of these kayaks far from land, unlike narrower
kayaks that would be extremely risky in view of capsize or other problems
arising. Most folding kayaks have built-in sponsons, that give them a degree
of seaworthiness that is impossible to achieve with narrower kayaks.

Mr. Dowd understands that wider kayaks are more stable.

First quote:

"The re-entry and roll is another of those techniques that are good
training and work fine in warmed pools or for skilled paddlers who have
been careless, but it is really a step beyond competence at rolling and
highlights the paradox that if you can do it, you will almost certainly
have precluded yourself from the necessity to do so. Furthermore, the conditions
that caused the capsize in the first place will still be there when you
come up, and the chances are that the cockpit will have scooped up a tubful
of water that destabilizes the boat." (p.91)

Mr. Dowd, unlike Mr. Lull does not do a Bait (re-entry and roll),
then a Switch, leaving the paddler in a more unstable boat than
before capsize, as Mr. Lull says above: "The kayak will be unstable until
most of the water is pumped out, so be ready to brace or roll again." p.82.

It is difficult to comprehend how an author like Mr. Lull can publish
a book entitled "Sea Kayaking Safety and Rescue", in which his recommended
rescue leaves a victim worse off than before capsize, unless one is aware
of the deliberate ACA Bait and Switch Fraud techniques, that leave the
public with no means of escaping death in the water.

In contrast, Mr. Dowd in Sea Kayaking, 1997, states:

"Remember, the self-rescue method that you rely on should get you out
of the water fast and leave you in a more stable position than you were
in when you capsized." (pp. 91-92)

It should be noted that these books were written before built-in CO2
gas sponsons were widely advised. The concept of the life raft is obviously
far superior than any kayak or canoe rescue ideas described. The canoe
and kayak sponson life raft is able to be paddled to shore with victms,
and also rescued swimmers hanging on top of decks or inside canoes.

In this sense the canoe or kayak becomes an effective rescue craft in
its' own right. Not just an ordinary canoe or kayak.

Imagine if the canoe and kayak industry wanted to sell more boats than
the current US market. Sell canoes and kayaks as not only much safer, with
a built-in life raft, but also as a rescue boat, capable of rescuing other
swimmers in the water and saving lives! Canoes and kayaks could be seen
as a positive watersafety resource everywhere, instead of the deadliest
boats in the world!

And this costs only $25 each CO2 sponson, built-in at the factory, on
each boat. It makes all of the Bait and Switch rescues murderous in comparison.
And makes contemporary ACA instruction a means of deliberate murder. Just
ask any judge or jury in a swimming pool to compare!

Mr. Lull had some help with his book from Matt Broze, co-author of
"Deep Trouble", a book that uses stories from Sea Kayaker Magazine
to show how deadly canoes and kayaks are, with no means of emergency stability
(the sponson Life Raft). No wonder well over one thousand US canoe and
kayak deaths occur.

This is taken from the website owned by Mr. Broze, with
my comments in brackets throughout, so no-one can complain about
anything "taken out of context":

"We recommend you learn to Eskimo roll your kayak. This skill is potentially
more valuable to sea kayakers than river kayakers because the distance
to shore can be so much greater. (Indeed. Whitewater deaths are not only
a small fraction of all canoe and kayak deaths because the shore is close
by, but also there are almost no whitewater deaths by hypothermia. In contrast,
almost all canoe and kayak deaths are due to hypothermia because victims
cannot get out of the water.) Because capsizes are so rare while sea kayaking
the value of learning to roll is not nearly as obvious as it is to a whitewater
paddler. You will probably need expert instruction. Contact a club or kayak
shop to find classes. Incidentally, it is easier to roll most gear laden
sea kayaks than it is to roll an empty river kayak. (Rolls are not easier.
In fact this statement is contradicted by almost all other authors, including
Mr. Broze in this very piece! Read the following qualifications next.)
At least if the gear can’t seriously shift to one side, side support at
the seat keeps you from shifting to the side, and adequate knee braces
are present. The additional weight acts as ballast and helps finish the
roll. Although the motion is slower getting started--it is more like a
thigh pull than a hip snap--once the rotating motion is present the momentum
can pull you up out of the water like a punching dummy. Please quit using
that sorry old "heavy gear laden kayak" excuse I hear so often for not
learning to roll. Learn to roll the kayak you will actually be using both
with and without a gear load." (Another statement of the Bait and Switch
technique. The potential victim must practice a great deal, using various
loads to be a success, even though the Greenland Champions must use a rescue
boat since they fail to roll so frequently, despite constant practice.)

"Practice other rescues to back up your ability to Eskimo roll. (If
the roll is such a good idea, why so much focus on the other Bait and Switch
back-up "rescues"?) Even the best rescues are marginal if they haven't
been practiced. (Even back-ups are so unreliable that they must be practised
also: Why are they called back-ups, if they are so failure-prone?)
Rescue practice in a pool can be very valuable, but you should understand
that a rescue which works in a heated pool with empty kayaks can give one
a false sense of security. Wind, waves, cold water and 150 pounds of gear
create a far more difficult situation. (Indeed. Rolls, and all Bait and
Switch "rescues" obviously cannot be trusted with human life. The only
rescue is the world maritime safety standard: The Life Raft, created in
seconds by CO2 Sponsons.) There is a wide variety of rescue techniques
described in kayaking books, and it is nice to be aware of them; however,
many work only under ideal conditions. Rescues that require the lifting
of one kayak and rocking it over another to empty it of water risk serious
damage to many kayaks and become nearly impossible with a gear load."

"The best rescues require little or no help and do not require lifting
and dumping the kayak. They get you out of the water quickly to minimize
your exposure to hypothermia and allow you to aid in the pumping or bailing
of your kayak. They should also be simple and easy to execute with a minimum
of extra gear if any. The best rescues are still a poor second to Eskimo
rolling..." (So all of these rescues are indeed inferior to the Eskimo
roll, that is so unreliable that it cannot be trusted by the World Champions
in Greenland, and requires other "back up" rescues that in turn are stated
to be not as "safe" as the Eskimo roll!)

"Every serious kayaker should learn the Eskimo Roll. It is by far the
quickest, most reliable method of rescue (Obviously this statement is untrue,
as contradicted above, by the need for back-up rescues, that in turn are
not reliable.).... Its only disadvantage is that some find it difficult
to learn.... Until you find the blade’s glide angle all attempts to complete
a roll will fail and you may pick up several habits that might need to
be laboriously broken before you will be able to succeed... Once you master
the Eskimo roll make sure you can do it with the equipment you will actually
be using. (Why do the Greenland Champs require a rescue boat? Who can trust
an Eskimo roll with their life, if the World Champs are failure-prone.)
When you get a new boat, paddle, PFD, drysuit or anything else that might
affect your roll you should practice rolling with it. It's not enough to
be a pool roller, you must also be capable of rolling the kayak as you
would be paddling it. That is with a gear load, bag on the back deck, your
life jacket on, etc. You need to be successful in whatever conditions (cold
water, waves, turbulence, etc.) you may find yourself. " (This recommendation
for the Eskimo roll is so qualified and demanding of special considerations,
that it cannot be trusted with human lives. It is a "show off" trick.)
(www.MarinerKayaks.com)

Obviously the the Eskimo roll is a profitable
Bait and Switch technique in itself. There is
no end of reasons for failure, for which
the victim is blamed. It is always the victim's fault, while
being denied the only recognized means world-wide to get human bodies out
of the water: A Life Raft.

Mr.Broze, Mr. Lull and the ACA have been denying the public any form
of Sponsons for over a decade. One thousand, five hundred (1,500)
dead canoe and kayak victims since 1993 in North America.

Murder: Adults, children, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, friends,
family friends, friends' friends. When we speak of murdered children, there
are more grave, emotional, and motivational considerations. However, the
murder of many hundreds of adults, through defrauding them of true canoe
and kayak safety is also sickening.

One interesting aspect of US Canoe and Kayak Murders is that almost
everyone either knows about someone dying in a canoe or kayak directly,
or they are only a few people away from knowing someone who was murdered
in a canoe or kayak. Therefore in a jury there will not only be the 1000
deaths and thousands of loved ones; some of the jury are not far removed
from knowing people who died, first hand. Put them in a swimming pool with
any of the "rescues", compared to the 2 little girls rescuing themselves
plus any other swimmers in the water (half of the jury). The jury will
find the "rescues" impossible, and the girls' sponsons easy, plus the ability
to rescue many more in the water than just the paddlers.

The jury, and anyone else quickly asks: "Why would the canoe and kayak
industry not try to sell using safety and "user friendly" ideas?" As I
have said before, some instructors are bullies, and they want either money
for instruction, or gratification of their ego as "superior" in some way,
or both. And some are sadistic. This results in the highest death
rate scandal in history. Far higher than any US vehicle scandals, like
Firestone/Ford.

US canoe and kayak murders are unique in that the 1500 dead victims
are so often blamed for their own deaths, although they have no means to
escape death in the water. Even experts with years of experience would
die without a powerboat to rescue them, like the World rolling champs in
Greenland. Anyone who cannot get out of the water in time will die, wearing
a PFD or not.

Victims are blamed for not wearing a PFD. However, about 30 % of the
dead US victims in year 2000 were wearing a PFD (USCG BARD). Wearing a
PFD cannot magically get people out of the water to save their lives. What
we see is that more of the dead wear PFDs. The dead needed a simple means
to get out of the water and stay out: A simple Life Raft. Almost all of
the dead remained on the surface of the water long enough to grab the canoe
or kayak, and get out of the water if they had a 5 second, built-in life
raft for $50 US, with a boarding platform like FAA airliner life rafts.
Pretty simple. Not wearing a PFD does not mean these people deserve death.
On a hot day lots of experts don't wear them either.

Some people don't wear seatbelts either, but that is no excuse to make
cars less safe. Ironically, this is exactly the argument for canoes and
kayaks: Make them as dangerous as possible (to try to sell dangerous instruction
and expensive paraphernalia that have no means to save lives; since there
is no way provided to get bodies out of the water.)

"The National Transportation Safety Board continues to have recreational
boating safety on its “10 Most Wanted List” for safety improvements. Recreational
boating fatalities are still second only to highway fatalities."
(National Association of State Boating Law Administrators, release
May 17, 2002.)

And of these recreational boating fatalities, canoes and kayaks are
the most dangerous by far: "Canoes and kayaks have the highest fatality
rate of all boat types ñ double the rate of personal watercraft
and 4 times higher than open motorboats." (US Congressional Testimony).
The US Coast Guard Release No:071-01 "Canoes and kayaks have by far the
highest fatality rates per million hours of exposure (.42) as any other
boat type."

Let's keep it simple: Referring only to two popular kayaking books.
Making canoes and kayaks as dangerous as possible, and blaming the victim
too:

Kent Ford, Kayaking, 1995: "There are zillions of rescues that
work,...Each rescue is designed to get you back into the safety of your
boat so you can paddle away in a comfortable, stable manner...Self-rescues
are much harder than assisted rescues. Getting water out of a capsized
boat and getting back into the boat by yourself are tricky...Paddle Float...This
works reliably in calm water without outside assistance, but paddlers debate
its effectiveness in rough conditions. (pp.83-85)

Why would there be "zillions of rescues" if there was a simple way
of saving your life in a canoe or kayak? Apparently there are also "zillions
of rescues" that don't work if you just read a little further, as in any
"Bait And Switch" Fraud!

Jonathan Hanson, Complete Sea Kayak Touring, 1998: "Even if you
are an accomplished Eskimo roller, any number of circumstances could prevent
you from rolling up successfully in bad conditions, a paddlefloat could
mean the difference in regaining the cockpit quickly" (p.36) "The biggest
danger of the paddlefloat is the false sense of security it engenders among
fools." (p.86)

Now you would think that the canoe and kayak industry, not having any
reliable means to saves lives, (no means in sea kayaks above) and no open
canoe rescues, would embrace the built-in CO2 sponsons. No. Apparently
they want to continue to kill as many victims as possible, in the US and
other countries. The means of killing is the Bait and Switch fraud technique
used by Enron and other corporations. But at least these corporations do
not deliberately kill (i.e. murder) so many innocent victims.

This practice of denying any reasonable means of saving human lives
in canoes and kayaks is criminally negligent.

More Stable Kayaks Misrepresented as Less Stable:

There is an endless list of possible fraudulent "safety" techniques
in this Bait and Switch business model. You may be surprised to hear that
some authors actually contend that narrower kayaks are more stable in waves.
They actually state that sponsons, in fact any kind of sponsons, make a
kayak less stable. Let's look at one publisher's problems, Mcgraw-Hill.
The following is an email sent to suzanne_telsey@mcgraw-hill.com, general
counsel, Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:30 PM:

Dear Mcgraw-Hill:

RE: Mcgraw-Hill Canoe and Kayak Murders

Mcgraw-Hill has now helped murder about 200 US citizens through 2 books:
Knapp's "Optimum Kayak" (that I warned you about, in Dec. 2000),
and now Hanson's "Complete Sea Kayak Touring."

Mcgraw-Hill has a consistent message in these books: "Make kayaks (or
canoes) as deadly as possible to leave innocent citizens, including children,
to die in the water (where body warmth is sucked out at a rate 25 times
faster than air.)" Instead of a simple CO2 sponson Life Raft, deployed
by pulling a tab, like any life raft or inflatable PFD, in 5seconds. (These
sponsons are contained in sleekly mounted containers Marked "Emergency-Rescue",
so anyone, even a novice, can easily get out of the killing water, and
even paddle to safety.)

These are factory installed, $50 US, for each canoe or kayak. They are
manufactured identically to US Coast Guard approved Inflatable PFDs, that
can be inflated by mouth as well as a gas cartridge. These sponsons have
about 80 lbs. of buoyancy.

Just go to the US Patent Office website and put # 6,343,562 into the
SEARCH box. These sponsons are much more powerful and effective, especially
when canoes and kayaks are flooded. And canoes and kayaks are especially
vulnerable to flooding. Mcgraw-Hill is effectively murdering US citizens
by denying them even inexpensive, built-in sponsons. Your books are misleading
and deadly regarding canoe and kayak safety.

My May 2001 letter to the Attorney-General of Florida documents
the ludicrous: "...the Eskimo roll being the most famous and effective.
It's also the hardest...An outrigger rescue with a paddlefloat..." (Canoe
and Kayak Magazine, Kayak Touring 2001, p.53) How can the "hardest" rescue
be the "most famous and effective"? The World Champs in Greenland require
a rescue boat at their Annual Rolling championships (Sea Kayaker Magazine,
Feb. 2001, p.41).

Even worse however, these rolling lies put true safety and rescue beyond
the reach of everyone using a canoe or kayak. This is a deliberate murder
scam to sell expensive instruction. Your books do this!

Of course any CO2 Gas Sponson kayak or canoe can rescue at least 2 swimmers,
having much greater stability and propelling power than the award-winning
windsurfer who rescued 2 capsized fishermen with just a board and no effective
paddle. Canoes and kayaks can be quickly transformed from being the most
deadly and vulnerable watercraft in the world (US Congress and USCG reports),
into a stable emergency rescue craft. Why not sell canoes and kayaks with
safety? Advertise their safety and rescue potential! Gain respect for canoes
and kayaks, instead of the usual: "There goes another accident just waiting."
Why murder so many people deliberately, with cruel, even sadistic, and
extremely deadly instruction? This is against the law and creates much
cost to society, apart from pain and suffering. It is a poor way to sell
a sport.

Over 2 years ago I diplomatically asked Mcgraw-Hill to stop deliberately
misleading and deadly publications, that also misrepresent my patented
sponsons.You acted in an arrogant manner. I now warn you to make suitable
reparation to myself and all of the berieved US families you have harmed.

It is in the interests of Mcgraw-Hill to behave in a socially responsible
manner toward US citizens, especially in the face of legal actions against
Mcgraw-Hill.

References:

1. U.S. Congressional Testimony: "Canoes and kayaks have the
highest fatality rate of all boat types ñ double the rate of personal
watercraft and 4 times higher than open motorboats.". Also USCG Release
No:071-01 "Canoes and kayaks have by far the highest fatality rates
per million hours of exposure (.42) as any other boat type."

2. I told Mcgraw-Hill to stop murdering people using their publications
in year 2000. You will recall the email to Suzanne, General Counsel, Mcgraw-Hill:

"Referring to the entire sentence in the book, that you quoted in the
FAX: "In steep or breaking seas, the extra width created by the sponsons
may actually be destabilizing if the kayak broaches to the waves." This
statement is untrue. The sponsoned kayak is less likely to be destabilized
if the kayak broaches to the waves, than any kayak without sponsons."

3. The US Military Kayakers, (10th Airbourne, Special Forces) 1994,
recommended sponsons over any other safety device, in heavy breaking seas
or dangerous surf landings. In fact any emergency requiring much greater
stability in waves!

4. Mcgraw-Hill publishes at least 2 books, despite all warnings, that
contradict the Law of Gravity! Both Knapp and Hanson argue that wider kayaks
are less stable in waves in your books! In order for this to work, the
Law of Gravity would need to be repealed for narrower kayaks in waves!

5. Hanson (referring to my sponsons, p.89): "Care must be exercised
with such systems, however, as they effectively add up to a foot to the
beam of the kayak, with a resulting loss of responsiveness in steep waves.
If a float-equipped kayak did capsize, righting it would be troublesome."

Hanson is terribly stupid. Overturned canoes and kayaks are difficult
to turn upright since they are slippery and have no easy means to grasp
the hull unless they have sponsons on! Any child can easily right a kayak
merely by putting body weight on top of a sponson, sinking it, since all
sponsons have no greater buoyancy than 80 lbs. Hanson's type of sponson
actually has about half that buoyancy force!

6. Now why would Mcgraw-Hill try to murder US citizens? To make money
from these stupid books! Why would Hanson and Knapp try to kill people
with these books? To make money.

7. In fact Mcgraw-Hill not only murders US citizens with the wide variety
of unworkable rescues advertised in these books, (just try a judge and
jury with any of them in a swimming pool); but also denies them the obvious
necessity for life: A Simple, Inexpensive Life Raft to get bodies out of
the water. For example a simple CO2 sponson Life Raft, deployed by pulling
a tab, like any life raft or inflatable PFD, in 5 seconds. (These sponsons
are contained in sleekly mounted containers Marked "Emergency-Rescue",
so anyone, even a novice, can easily get out of the killing water, and
even paddle to safety.)

Why would so many authors write books describing rescues that obviously
leave victims in unstable kayaks (and canoes), instead of making them more
stable, rather easily (especially with CO2 sponsons built-in at the factory)?
And why would they not promote canoes and kayaks as safe craft, with
a built-in stabilizing life raft, to function as a lifesaving boat, capable
of rescuing swimmers in trouble on any waters of the world?

I suggest that these authors worry that they have nothing to write about,
despite the fact that they are now writing about leaving people in canoe
and kayak emergencies, to die in the water. (There is an endless list of
topics to be taught regarding the enjoyment of kayaks and canoes. It appears
that canoes and kayaks are being deliberately made as dangerous as possible
to sell instruction that does not work.)

The ACA letter above (that was written about 200 US deaths ago, with
more deaths in Canada and other countries), obviously was against the only
idea that could save these victims: the sponson life raft.. A life raft
concept is rather obvious. Just as rolls and reentry rolls obviously fail,
although advertised as superior to paddle floats. The re-entry roll in
fact, obviously leaves people with a kayak full of water, with no way to
become stable, let alone more stable in a capsizing emergency. This is
an obvious and deadly fraud among other "bait and switch" rescue fraud
techniques, that are prevalent throughout the canoe and kayak industry.
Enron took no lives directly.

This fact is just one reason for this book. If these people wish to
clear their names from any connection to fraud and 1500 US canoe and kayak
deaths, they can start to endorse real canoe and kayak safety. If they
do not attempt to rectify their "mistakes", and continue to make canoes
and kayaks as dangerous as possible, then they will suffer serious consequences.

Criminal negligence causing death is a serious offense! There are also
grounds here for murder in the second degree: reckless disregard for the
safety and value of human life.

I receive complaints on a fairly regular basis, from many athletic,
would-be paddlers who complain of no real "rescues" being taught. One call
from an Australian marathon runner and triathalon athlete told me he was
"almost drowned" in a class that taught the "re-entry roll". He said he
would have preferred instruction with a paddle float instead; although
he was aware, as almost all books state, that the paddlefloat was a very
poor rescue idea, requiring balance, calm water and good luck, due to the
very precarious proceedures in the paddle float "rescue", that leave a
victim less stable than before capsize!

More Bait and Switch Canoe and Kayak Techniques:

Just in case you thought only one author advocates that the re-entry
roll is the safest idea (despite the fact that the victim is in more danger,
is colder, and is much less stable than before capsize):

Reentry and Roll:

"For paddlers with good rolling skills, this is the quickest way to
recover from a wet exit. You can be back in the boat and rolled up within
a minute." (Jonathan Hanson, Complete Sea Kayak Touring, 1998, p.85)

(You will also have a boat full of water obviously! And no way to stabilize
it while trying to pump it out. Pumping requires at least one hand, holding
a paddle at least one hand, and the sprayskirt is generally at least a
one hand operation. In Fact: It is impossible to pump out the flooded kayak
through an opening between the sprayskirt and the cockpit rim. "...It has
two fairly serious shortcomings: You can't seal the sprayskirt, and you
can't keep both hands on the paddle while pumping." Sea Kayaker Magazine,
February 2003, p.29

This is why the reentry roll is so deadly, even if anyone could easily
do it. Just another trick with which to endanger human life to make money.)

Good note in the above book on the paddle float:

" The only danger to a rigid outrigger setup is the extra stress on
the paddle... (i.e. Breakage)...one key to a successful paddle-float reentry
is doing it quickly...then get in fast...Look for a lull in the waves to
let go of the paddle and secure your sprayskirt...while pumping...(p. 88)

The Deadly Pumping Out of Kayaks Using the Popular
Hand-Held Pump and A Sprayskirt:

It has generally been recognized for many years that kayaks are impossible
to pump out through a sprayskirt, even in small waves. You need
hands for the paddle, pump and sprayskirt, but you still can't seal the
sprayskirt, so water comes back in. This has been openly acknowledged:
"...It has two fairly serious shortcomings: You can't seal the sprayskirt,
and you can't keep both hands on the paddle while pumping." (Sea Kayaker
Magazine, February 2003, p.29)

Almost all kayaks lack either a foot pump or an electric pump. Few sprayskirts
fit well enough to be "not fiddly" or leaky. So the flooding of kayaks
is a major safety concern. Another idea is to shove the pump down the top
of the sprayskirt. But this seems to require unzipping the PFD, since the
tops of sprayskirts normally extend some distance underneath the PFD.

Reference: Matt Broze, "Pumping Out after Paddle Float Rescue", Paddlewise,
Wed, 20 Jun 2001 02:36:43 -0700: "...obviously there are going to be certain
combinations of clothing and spraydecks that don't allow a pump down the
front. Please try it and report back (if you don't knock yourself out and
drown after hitting your chin)."

Mr. Broze and his associate George Gronseth continue to mislead American
and Canadian victims to their deaths in SEA Kayaker Magazine, lying
about pumping out kayaks in 2006!:

"The most effective way of using a handheld bilge pump in rough seas
is to lift the bottom of your PFD up and shove the pump down between the
spray skirt and your belly. This way is slow and awkward, but you can pump
with the spray skirt completely sealed. Practice it." (p.27, SEA KAYAKER
MAGAZINE, June 2006.) This obvious lie is one of
the most egregious and deadly lies ever printed in an American Magazine!
See for yourself how the PFD must be unfastened to even allow access to
the top of a spray skirt, as Broze admits just above in JUNE 2001! Over
500 dead Americans, and over 125 dead Canadians in canoes and kayaks later.

Canoes and kayaks must be stable when fully
flooded, allowing even 10 year old girls without expensive and fraudulent
instruction to immediately rescue themselves and others with $25 CO2 airbag
sponsons.

It is difficult to find more contempt anywhere
for the value of human life: Obviously flooded kayaks quickly re-capsize
to leave the victim to die a terror-filled and agonizing death in the water.

Mr. Broze has been "playing God" for many years:
""A capsized paddler who Eskimo rolls is still in the same conditions
that capsized him or her in the first place, and with each roll he or she
will take on more water, lessening the kayak's stability." Matt Broze,
Deep
Trouble, p.91. You will note his focus on "Eskimo Rolls" in this book
and other publications.

His website (March 2000) pleads with those paddlers who tell him they
can't roll their loaded kayaks, to do it! But reviewers in Sea Kayaker
Magazine Feb. 2000 can't roll a kayak only slightly different from
their own (which they can't roll loaded either.) A Personal Statement,
p. 84, in "Deep Trouble", by Matt Broze admits:
"In the effort to encourage the use of this rescue as a backup to rolling,
perhaps we have unintentionally..." Matt is referring to David Kelley's
death, using a paddlefloat designed by Matt. Paddlefloats are deceptively
deadly.

Now why would Mr. Broze not read
"Sea Wings to the Rescue", below, printed in Sea Kayaker Magazine, Winter
1993 by his co-author of "Deep Trouble" Chris Cunningham (in the pictures).
Broze does not want true rescue safety. He likes "playing God".

These killers are still at it 5 years later, and over 600 American
and Canadian deaths in canoes and kayaks (USCG and Canadian Red Cross databases.)
These killers are both American and Canadian.
After 5 years it is rather obvious that this "safety" problem is more of
a badge of membership, than a source of great grief to many American and
Canadian families. Any law-abiding citizen realizes these killers are best
paddling Guantanamo Bay. They have murdered far more than Al Qaeda
(about 600) in these 5 years since Sept.11, 2001. Considering how tiny
these groups are, these killers are far more deadly than Al Qaeda:

"All national paddlesports organizations combined comprise just one
percent of committed users and a tenth-percent of the total user group...To
represent paddlers to regulatory agencies with legitimacy, an organization
should represent at least 10 percent of the sport's committed users...The
ACA is the paddlesport organization best placed ...to protect paddlers
from paddlecraft registration, required education and mandated PFD use...protecting
our sport from needless government regulation." (Paddler, Sept./Oct.,
2003, p.84)

>The use of air switches and buttons eliminates the home-made wiring
>problem. All wiring you do is internal to the waterproof case
and
>can be as bulletproof as any factory wiring job.

How robust is that air switch? I tend to jam a lot of stuff in back
of the
seat and the seat back sometimes puts a lot of pressure on things back
there.

>> The hole through the spray skirt system might be the best option
but I
>> dread cutting a hole in a $100.00 plus shirt. And it still requires
>> one hand to operate the hand pump.

>Two hands. You still have to stabilize the pump with one hand
while
>pumping with the other. If you want a one hand solution, use
a deck
>mounted pump.

I thought it might be possible to hold the pump between my legs while
pumping with one hand and bracing enough with my knees against the
inside
of the cockpi coaming.

>You can use a standard pump without the hole in the skirt by
>releasing the skirt on one side and slipping the pump down between
>the skirt and the coaming.

Does this really work in very rough water? Whenever I pratice this in
just
moderately rough conditons, a lot of water comes in through the partly
open skirt and my skirt wants to come off entirely. I have a very tight
rubber randed skirt which does not seem to work well with this method.
Even in calm water there is still a lot of water left in the cockpit.
I
just don't really like it.

After reviewing the comments so far and the ones on the other thread
about
the surprise capsize, I am leaning more an more toward an electric
pump.
But are there any fans out there of deck mounted pumps? I heard the
stern
mount ones are slow and hard to use and the ones in front of the cockpit
tend to bang up the knees and shins.
-mike
The hole through the spray skirt system might be the best option but
I
> >> dread cutting a hole in a $100.00 plus shirt. And it still requires
> >> one hand to operate the hand pump.
>
> >Two hands. You still have to stabilize the pump with one hand
while
> >pumping with the other. If you want a one hand solution, use
a deck
> >mounted pump.
>
> I thought it might be possible to hold the pump between my legs while
> pumping with one hand and bracing enough with my knees against the
inside
> of the cockpi coaming.
>

All the hand pumps I have seen use the up stroke to draw water out of
the boat and out the pump exhaust. So you need one hand to work the
pump and one hand to hold it *down* on those up strokes.

I wish there was a hand pump that worked on the down stroke, like a
bicycle pump. There's two reasons for this: I have much stronger
muscles for pushing down than I do for pulling up, and pushing down
would let me rest the pump on the bottom of the boat and give me the
possibility of having one hand free.

--
Darryl
The re-enter and roll from the inverted position, was I believe, originally
intended to be done so that the skirt was reattached while you were
underwater, thereby mitigating the amount of water entering the kayak
when
rolling back up (cmpared to doing so without a skirt on or than with
the
side-entry re-enter and roll which might scoop water in far too readily).

I've had direct experience with both foredeck mounted pumps versus rear-deck
mounted pumps in real-world emergencies in heavy, rebounding and breaking
seas. The front mounted pump is sufficient, while a rear mounted pump
is
effectively usable only by another paddler (IMHO). The foot mounted/bulkhead
mounted pump works the best of the three locations, but can cause some
leg
cramping. They work best with a kayak of sufficient volume in and around
the
foot/tibia/knee area. The pump rate on hand held pumps move a lot of
water,
but can be very tiring to use in big volumed cockpits. There is no
perfect
solution, though an electric pump doing its thing is a marvel to behold
by a
frightened, wet, cold paddler.

I prefer simply staying in my boat these days. Once I get my new aortic
valve, I should be able to hold my breath for at least three roll attempts.
If I need more than that, I deserve to be sushi. I'm currently staying
out
of storms for now.

For those contemplating a real-life paddlefloat rescue in rough water,
best
be forewarned that a strong paddle shaft is invaluable.

And as for those like Dave Kruger who don't roll yet have logged miles
and
miles safely on the BC/Washington/Oregon coasts, you truly epitomize
what
mature, prudent paddling is all about.

Doug Lloyd

> Does this really work in very rough water? Whenever I pratice this
in just
> moderately rough conditons, a lot of water comes in through the partly
> open skirt and my skirt wants to come off entirely. I have a very
tight
> rubber randed skirt which does not seem to work well with this method.
> Even in calm water there is still a lot of water left in the cockpit.
I
> just don't really like it.
>
> After reviewing the comments so far and the ones on the other thread
about
> the surprise capsize, I am leaning more an more toward an electric
pump.
> But are there any fans out there of deck mounted pumps? I heard the
stern
> mount ones are slow and hard to use and the ones in front of the
cockpit
> tend to bang up the knees and shins.
> -mike
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions: PaddleWise@PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request@PaddleWise.net
Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************
The big advantage of putting your spray skirt on while you are upside
down
(not that I have succeeded very often) is that you don't have to mess
with
it once you are upright. My skirt requires two hands to put on. Add
in
pumping the foot pump with one foot and bracing with my other two hands,
and it gets to be a bit much....

I wonder if a short bulkhead or, more properly, ridge down the center
of
the cockpit, about 2-3 inches high, would mitigate the free-surface
effect
and help to stabilize the kayak after a reenty?

Chuck Holst
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions: PaddleWise@PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request@PaddleWise.net
Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************

More Reasonable Paddlers

Most of the normal population in both countries is reasonable, with
only a few misunderstandings, regarding physics and naval architecture
applied to canoes and kayaks. I invented them in 1987, based on my knowledge
of physics and naval architecture. Note that these persons usually don't
realize that a flooded canoe or kayak is much more stable than unflooded,
Due to massive neutral buoyancy ballast coupled with sponson buoyancy.
This is why 2 ten year old girls without any experience or instruction
can rescue themselves and large adult victims, in rough water or calm.
The US Military Special Forces Kayakers, 10th Airborne, Fort Devens, MA
invited me and famous author John Dowd to their large Symposium, open to
the Military Kayaking Teams from NATO countries in 1994. See a brief description
of their findings in the preface to this book:

Sea Kayaks Techniques Bulletin Board

Re: Safety and sponsons - Talking to Tim Ingram

Posted By: David
Date: Sunday, 7 July 2002, at 8:21 a.m.

In Response To: Saftey and sponsons (Tim Mattson)

I had a long talk with Tim Ingram yesterday, asking him all about sponsons.
He is very nice on the phone, speaks quite calmly, listens well. I rather
enjoyed our conversation. He certainly doesn't strike me as someone who
flies off the handle, at least in person.

He invented them in 1992, based on his studies of military flotation
devices, he is a walking encyclopedia on this subject. Most military ops
used sponsons for entry onto surf beaches, but then again, according to
Tim, military use of kayaks is down, they are too easily detected with
modern technology. I don't agree with everything he says, his impression
is that the paddlesport industry is rejecting sponsons because they are
so effective that they would eliminate most of the need for instruction.
He definitely believes in instruction, but feels most instructor's time
could be better spent teaching how to interpret charts, plan routes, assess
sea conditions, etc. He is definintely pushing for legal action against
the ACA, there is alot of discussion of conspiracy so that ACA can protect
its own market and interests. This is where I just didn't bother arguing,
I disagree that sponsons are the be and end all of safety. When I asked
about compromises in secondary stability he pointed out the fact that the
life raft does not tip in most conditions and that the combination of enhanced
flotation and ballast is still a time-honored way to save lives at sea.
He does have a point here, and I think we get too caught up in the secondary
stability argument, the UBC research tank results showed that narrow kayaks
tip easier, they were no more stable than wide boats, so I am even beginning
to doubt the hype about secondary stability and kayaks. Face it, a wide
boat is a stable boat. Not much fun for 3D paddling of Jeds, not so easy
to get onto edge, but more stable in big waves. Not sure, I have read hundreds
of papers on secondary stability, but there is little evidence to back
up these claims that somehow a narrow boat will ride waves more securely
than a wide beam boat. I think that the hype surrounding narrow yaks (for
touring) is worse and probably more misleading than Tim's sponson comments.
Narrow boats, with very rounded hulls, providing enhanced secondary stability,
to me, are just capsizes waiting to happen in all but the most skilled
hands.

He is certainly pro-paddlefloat rescue, but believes that sponsons stabilize
the boat after re-entry, so in combination with paddlefloat put the paddler
in a more secure position, to get to shore. His new model has both a regular
inflation valve, and a gas cartridge, he is designing longer sponsons which
can be deployed with gas cartridge and provide a substantial increase in
flotation over older models. He has only sold about a dozen sets from MEC
here in Canada, so his market penetration is really low. You have no fears
of these things becoming dominant anytime soon.

Although I disagree strongly with this legal action of his, it was an
interesting and pleasant conversation. He sees sponsons like a climber
sees a safety harness, you wear it as insurance. And whereas some of you
might still choose to rappel with a dulfersitz, the modern harness is much
more effective, that's his take on sponsons. He also describes their use
by aboriginal cultures of the Aleutians all the way to Greenland.

I think his best comments concern White Squall, which is, even ahead
of our operation, the biggest and most successful kayak rental and instruction
outfit in Ontario. They have been using sponsons, according to Tim, for
years, although I have rented from White Squall and didn't find any of
them on my boat. White Squall, John Dowd and other leaders in the field
have endorsed them.

Anyhow, I paddled for 20 years without them, and haven't even had them
out of the duffle bag for 2 years; but, I still think he has an idea, that
with further refinement, are a worthy addition to rental kayaks, at least.
We have all had enough of this topic, and thought I would follow up by
talking directly to the designer, to clarify my own position further.

: With all our talk about sponsons and saftey, I just couldn't resist
sharing
: this with you all.

: I am on all sorts of paddlesports mailing lists. I just got a catelog
from
: Wyoming river Raiders. On page 6, they advertise Seawing sponsons
--
: normally $150 but now on sale for $106. Is this for real? Is that
really
: what they cost? That is outrageous!

: It gets better. You look at the picture that goes with the sponson
add. It
: shows a picture of a studly, hair chested kayaker with aweful technique
: (all push pull with a paddle only 2/3 submerged in the water) paddling
: along in flat water with sponsons on his kayak. He is not wearing
a PFD or
: a spray skirt. There isn't even a PFD on the deck of the kayak (though
: there is a pump and what looks like soem sort of sailing rig).

: What a great saftey message this sends. If you use sponsons, you're
so safe
: you don't need a spray skirt of PFD. So you see, since you save all
that
: money on a PFD and spray skirt, the $106 bucks you pay for the sponsons
is
: a real bargin.

: --Tim

: P.S. ... and yes I am aware that Sponson-Tim did not necessarily endorse
this
: add. The stupid way his product is displayed does not reflect on
him or
: any sponson advocates out there. It's really the catelog company
I'm
: picking on -- not the sponsons.

To Repeat: it is difficult to
find more contempt anywhere for the value of human life: Obviously flooded
kayaks quickly re-capsize to leave victim to die a terror-filled
and agonizing death in the water.

Sprayskirts and pumps are so problematic that human lives are endangered.
Airbag Sponsons make sprayskirts and pumps irrelevant,
since sponsons permit paddling to safety fully flooded. And even allow
other victims in the water to be rescued and paddled to shore.

Some of the above persons are part of a solid group of less than
one-dozen, who are refugees of my application of social psychology
principles against the original "Wavelength" list, resulting in its' collapse;
as most contributors realized finally: their cruel and anti-social behavior
toward dead victims. The ACA too, is well aware of this Sea Kayaker
Magazine article (and the other, shorter article, in the largest U.
S. publication "Canoe and Kayak Magazine." The SK editor prudently
used a New York writer instead of a Seattle author, who would have been
vilified. To say nothing of magazine advertising deficits. Boycott has
been used effectively to punish otherwise ethical publications, who otherwise
believe the public deserves "the truth."

Sea Kayak Rescue, 2001, R. Schumann and J.Shriner, p.45: "The
Paddlefloat Self-Rescue is a great first rescue for someone getting started.
It requires some extra gear and lots of practice to stay sharp..."

(Obviously this is a highly unreliable rescue, as most authors state,
at least between the lines. Author's Italics.)

And:
"The reenter and roll is potentially the fastest solo reentry in this
book. Where the Reenter and Roll really comes into its own however, is
in rough seas, because it skips the vulnerable part of..Paddlefloat reentry..at
which you climb on top of your kayak and try to balance." (p.64)

Just to compare:

"Practice is the vital ingredient in learning the paddlefloat rescue...Without
practicing this rescue in a variety of conditions, the paddlefloat will
do you no good." (John Lull, Sea Kayaking Safety and Rescue, 2001,
p.74)

"There are two advantages of the sponsons over the paddle float: first,
you have support on both sides of the boat, not just the paddle float side;
and second, you have a paddle to use and a stabilized boat once you are
back in the cockpit." (David Harrison, Sea Kayaking Basics, 1993,
pp.55-56)

"In a traditional kayak, after you flop over you have but two choices:
roll up or swim. Once you're out of the traditional kayak it is extremely
difficult-even for a trained and skilled paddler-to reboard. Hundreds of
pounds of water are sloshing around inside, making the kayak very unstable,
and you're going to have to balance your boat in the conditions that put
you over in the first place while also attempting to remove the water."
(Dennis Stuhaug, Sit-On-Top-Kayaking, 2000, p.40)"

Yesterday afternoon on the CBC radio phone-in program, Mr. Peter Garapick,
Superintendent, Office of Boating Safety, Canadian Coast Guard, provided
further evidence against the Canadian Coast Guard.

Re: Canadian Coast Guard Murder Program

Mr. Garapick, without qualification, stated that "only 5 or 6 of about
165 boating deaths a year would occur if everyone wore a PFD." This is
a blatant lie. Mr. Jon Churchill, also Superintendent in the Same Office,
is not the only murderer in the Canadian Coast Guard, to say nothing of
Thibault, Minister, Cote, senior murder counsel, and Cauchon, Attorney
General.

Twelve (12) children died in PFDs in Lake Temiskaming. They were able
to execute all of the rescues they had practised. But they just recapsized
since there was no emergency stability (built -in $65 Life Raft.) Eight
hundred (800) have died in Canadian Canoes and Kayaks since.

Mr. Garapick and Mr. Churchill are serial killers of the worst kind.
They are allowed to insert themselves within Canadian society and strike
Canadians dead without warning. They kill at a rate over ten (10) times
the rate of serial killers without the canoe and kayak modis operandi.

These killers are cruel and without remorse, trampling on the graves
of 800 Canadians who simply made the fatal mistake of canoeing or kayaking,
almost all of whom died in the water because they were denied an inexpensive
($65), built-in Life Raft to get out. The sailors in 2 World Wars had both
Life Rafts and PFDs or life jackets. (Sailors on the Bismark had inflatable
Life Jackets so they would not be imperilled while at action stations,
or running to abandon ship through narrow corridors.)
Without the Life Rafts they were soon just as dead as they would be
without a PFD, even in tropical waters. (See the tiny Life Rafts needed
by fighter pilots.) Fighters usually carried the recommended knives in
the cockpit to deflate these life rafts if accidentally inflated in combat,
as occasionally happened.

The senior government lawyer, Mr. Cote, and his superior Mr. Cauchon,
Attorney General, deliberately counsel the murder of Canadians. This matter
must be brought to court as quickly as possible. The RCMP are not responsive.
However the OPP is responsive, although they feel, quite rightly, that
the Attorney General of Canada should correct this matter. (Or at least
the RCMP.) Nevertheless, more Canadian deaths occur in Ontario than in
any other province. So the OPP, bless their hearts, are going to become
involved.

If the Canadian Coast Guard were serious about PFDs, the law would require
PFDs to be worn. But the Coast Guard apparently wants death (job security?)
The Coast Guard wants to deny canoe and kayak life rafts to Canadians to
murder them, that much is clear. The OPP must charge these murderers as
quickly as possible to save more innocent lives.

Four dead Canadian civilians are just as important as 4 dead Canadian
Soldiers! Her Excellency the Governor General Does not want any more Dead
in Canoes and Kayaks, to award the Medal for Bravery posthumously.

Tim Ingram

July 10, 2002

Her Excellency, Governor-General of Canada
Your Excellency:

Re: Canadian Canoe and Kayak Deaths

You reminded Canadians that you could intervene in a non-political manner
with bureaucracy, in a CBC radio interview that was broadcast from Newfoundland
July 6, 2002. You awarded Nicholas Mark Seltzer your Governor's General
Medal of Bravery in 1999 posthumously, in a kayaking accident that claimed
2 lives.

About 800 Canadians have died in kayaks and canoes since 12 children
died on Lake Temiskaming in 1978. Then the 12 victims had practised "rescues",
but rescues cannot depend on practice. They must work regardless, like
wearing a PFD. If victims don't get out of the water they die, even wearing
a PFD.

Your 2 kayaking deaths involved the use of 4 kayaks made by Current
Designs in Victoria, B.C. A Search and Rescue Officer from the Canadian
Coast Guard visited this company in August 1994 and found that instructors
there were very impressed with the idea of creating a life raft out of
a capsized and fully flooded canoe or kayak by using sponsons. (This reflected
the same findings of the US Special Forces Military Kayakers.)

However, the owner of Current Designs told the Officer that Life Raft
Sponsons "prevented rescue". The Canadian Coast Guard also prevented this
report from reaching the public. Hundreds of Canadians have died since
then.
As you can see, it is plain and obvious that canoes and kayaks are
the most vulnerable watercraft and they have by far the highest rate of
death.

(Over 3 times the US death rate: "USCG Release No:071-01 ...Canoes and
kayaks have by far the highest fatality rates per million hours of exposure
.42 as any other boat type.")

It is also plain and obvious that almost all deaths occur in the water,
victims succumbing to hypothermia and drowning, even wearing PFDs.

The Canadian Coast Guard's Office of Boating Safety has deliberately
prevented Canadians from having a canoe and kayak Life Raft since 1994:
For example, a $65 built-in Life Raft, created by two tiny gas canisters,
each fitted to one side of a canoe or kayak and inflating in 5 seconds.

You may ask: "Why would they do this? This is not rational. Why would
they mislead Canadians by saying that there are all sorts of canoe and
kayaks rescues, that in fact are so difficult to perform and are so unreliable,
even in a swimming pool, that only a fool or a criminal would entrust such
trickery with human life."

In contrast, the Life Raft is the World Standard for Marine Safety.
The Canoe and Kayak Life Raft Uses identical technology and materials as
the already approved Coast Guard inflatable PFDs: Having the identical
gas cartridge inflator and oral inflator for backup.

The canoe and kayak Life Raft utilizes weight of the flooded interior
of the craft as ballast since capsized canoes and kayaks are inevitably
flooded; and without protection against flooding or reflooding otherwise
in emergencies, canoes and kayaks are death traps.

This ballast stability, coupled with the sponsons far exceeds the overall
stability of 2 man Life Rafts that have carried people successfully through
thousands of miles of stormy seas in the Pacific ocean. The flooded interiors
make superior boarding platforms to the boarding platforms of contemporary
Life Rafts approved for airliner use.

(Of course this stability permits pumping out of the interior too. However,
in most emergencies canoes and kayaks are prone to reflooding. Better not
to waste energy on pumping, even if a pump is available; but paddle immediately
to safety to escape the hypothermia-inducing situation, warming the body
in the process.)

Best of all the canoe and kayak Life Raft can be easily paddled to shore
even fully flooded. Flooded canoes and kayaks do not necessarily mean death
for recipients of the Governor's General Medal For Bravery.

This victim's family, and the families of 800 Canadians are mocked by
government actions that make canoes and kayaks as dangerous as possible.
The deaths of their loved ones, instead of stimulating Canadian society
to lead the world in canoe and kayak safety, are thrown away.

I have attempted to persuade the Canadian Coast Guard to respect the
sacrifices of 800 Canadians in marking both the inherent dangers and the
ethical safety practices needed for canoes and kayaks. For many years I
used very diplomatic language.

I hope, Your Excellency, that you are able to persuade the government
to act immediately to save lives. If not, perhaps you can initiate an investigation
by the RCMP.

Just a few facts here:

1. The family of your recipient of the Medal for Bravery would feel
much better if his death can lead to real safety for kayaks and canoes.
Most citizens, including Your Excellency, might otherwise think that this
death, however brave, is this person's own fault.

This death is a result of extreme negligence and even willful intention
to kill, in the disguise of safety: Both Coast Guard personnel and instructors
sometimes state that without deaths, people would not know that canoes
and kayaks are dangerous! At the same time canoes and kayaks are advertised
to be "safe, they hardly ever capsize". As you know, when they do capsize,
and victims can't get out of the water, they die. Near Toronto or in the
Arctic. There are a large number of "experienced experts" who die or nearly
die in mishaps every year.

So 800 Canadians have died since the group of 12 children died on Lake
Temiskaming, trying "canoe over canoe rescues" only to capsize the "rescuing"
canoes also. (Bill Mason's last book before he died clearly condemns this
rescue notion, as did my own YMCA camp 30 years before his book.)

2. Usually canoe and kayak deaths are not rationalized in public as
a positive safety measure. This fallacious contention is usually reserved
for discussions among "experts", around campfires that are not in the public
eye. The value of "character building" from such human sacrifices and suffering
normally becomes part of these discussions. I have literally thousands
of pages documenting such points of view from self-appointed canoe and
kayak experts in internet discussion groups.
You are probably aware, Your Excellency, that the motives of serial
killers involve gratification from murder and domination, control and suffering
of victims. There is an enormous volume of scientific literature on such
human behavior, especially since the Nuremburg trials. I was able to test
numerable hypotheses, once involving the Head of the Sociology Department
from a well-known University in the US.

3. Police departments understand the powers of group psychology, as
they pursue the goal of public safety. The Canadian Coast Guard however
has engineered canoe and kayak "safety" in order to kill as many as possible.
Your Medal recipient apparently did not know this and thought he would
not die. If people capsize, and can't get out of the water, they die. Near
Toronto or in the Arctic. The public mistakenly assumes that the Coast
Guard would not set them up for dying in a canoe or kayak, just like Nicholas
Mark Seltzer.

The Canadian Coast Guard enforces safety that the American Canoe Association
(ACA) and The British Canoe Union, both condemn. The ACA letter to the
Attorney General of Florida, June 2001, did not defend against my charges
of misleading safety regarding paddlefloat rescues (actually making capsized
craft less stable than before capsize), nor against expecting all people
to Eskimo roll (the Greenland Rolling Championships use a large rescue
boat due to the large numbers of world champions who are unable to rescue
themselves, SeaKayaker Magazine, Feb. 2001, p.41).

Instead, the ACA recommended the same assisted rescue techniques that
murdered 4 schoolchildren in the UK in 1994, (resulting in convictions
for manslaughter.) Capt. Thompson of the UK Coast Guard (MSA) contacted
me during huge media outcry in the UK, on the advice of BCU author Mr.
D Hutchinson, who stated that the safety advantages of Life Raft canoe
and kayak sponsons were "obvious" in one of his many books. I discussed
this matter with Mr. Rouncevelle USCG and Ms. K. Sandiford, CCG in 1994.

In 1998 a Grade 6 school class from Elliott Lake, Ontario almost died
under the supervision of the YMCA camp at St. John's Island in the North
Channel. The chance cruise of a motorboat, large enough to get the kids
out of those deadly cold waters immediately, plus able to radio ahead for
3 ambulances to treat all for hypothermia at the nearest road, prevented
a New World Record for Canoe and Kayak Deaths that is still Held by the
Temiskaming Tragedy. Usually the deaths are not widely known, like the
student of a Sports Camp on Lake Rosseau, Ontario, Thankgiving Day, 1997.

This brave child died in the water while wearing a PFD. The 2 staff
were able to get the other child to Parry Sound General Hospital for treatment
of hypothermia.

4. I have been able to construct a courtroom conviction scenario for
2nd degree murder charges, involving only 7 necessary questions. Of course
competent legal counsel would plea bargain for lesser charges and argue
that the Canadian Government, through the Canadian Coast Guard, authorized
the murders. This is OK. The message to Canadians and to the Canadian government
is that killing people by deliberately endangering them is a serious criminal
offence.

This is why, Your Excellency, your intervention is so important. You
can stop these deaths now. The Prime Minister and his ministers have been
aware of this issue for some time now. Canadians die in kayaks and canoes
whenever Canadian waters lose that protective covering of ice.

5. I state these points briefly and without intended humour, although
I realize the inherent irony blurs the border of comedy and tragedy, however
unintended.
I do not wish to lengthen this email to you, Your Excellency, unnecessarily.
However, I wish to give you as clear an opportunity as possible to make
the best decision as Governor General of Canada.

6. All of this information is in the public domain. And it is fitting
to point out where dedication to canoe and kayak safety can lead. Canoes
and kayaks can offer great benefits to society: Embracing wilderness skills,
natural history, navigation, ecology, the-list-is-endless. Once canoes
and kayaks are safe enough. Canada is the world centre for canoeing and
kayaking, historically. This is an outstanding legacy throughout the world!

I would like canoes and kayaks to be included in a school curriculum.
A grade 6 class can easily calculate the force of buoyancy needed to oppose
any capsizing force (calculated centre of gravity of canoe or kayak) to
protect against capsizes, or recapsizes (that mark so many brave and desperate
struggles against death.) Recently CBC radio June 21, 2002 "Ontario Today"
broadcast a program on canoes and kayaks that indicated the "expert" and
host could not pass a simple grade 6 test for stability.

7. Keep in mind how many families are in grief when you address Mr Chretien
and his ministers. The 800 victims represent a considerable force of public
opinion. If the PM and others attempt to "slow walk" you, Your Excellency,
bluntly ask them: "Why would you deny people an inexpensive, built-in Canoe
and Kayak Life Raft and leave them to die in the water?"
You will have to repeat this, perhaps several times. Eventually they
will find the right answer: "Life Rafts are the world-standard safety device
for any marine emergency, but especially so for canoes and kayaks! There
is not much boat for residual stability and safety to begin with!"

Do not give up! They may be resistant to reason and may even petulantly
state that they are entitled to continue the murder policy of the Canadian
Coast Guard.

Remember that they are only further proving my point that they are identical
in behavior and motive to serial killers. This is plain and obvious to
most judges and courts in the world. Eventually they will understand their
own position. (I believe most of them know this now but are behaving identically
to serial killers, hoping all will blow over and they can continue to kill.)

You must be patient and persistent. But the outcome is worth it. Your
Medal for Bravery is a great means to encourage the best from Canadian
Society. In this case you can make an even greater contribution to society,
the memory of Nicholas Mark Seltzer, his loved ones, as well as the 800
other dead Canadians and their loved ones.

Since your investigation, Report Number M93W0008 (the dead kayaker wearing
a PFD but drowning after suffering hypothermia, Group of Chartered Sea
Kayaks, Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia, 30 July 1993), about
300 Canadians have died in the water similarly, according to the willful
intention of the Canadian Coast Guard...

> Dear OPP - Duty Office
>
> The email addresses below have already been used with no reply, weeks
ago.
> I live within a 45 minute drive to OPP Headquarters in Orillia. Please
send me an appointment time to meet with the appropriate people at
your
> headquarters. As you know, deliberate endangerment of people is a
criminal
> offence, especially when these people die.
> Please ensure that the list of canoe and kayak deaths in Ontario
is
brought to the meeting. Since 1978, with the deaths of 12 children
in Lake
> Temiskaming, hundreds have died in Ontario.
>
> Thank you, in advance, for forwarding my appointment time. I am aware
of
> community policing initiatives as well as other programs that set
the OPP
> among the best police forces in the world. I look forward to meeting
with
> your staff in Orillia.
>
> Yours truly,
>
> Tim Ingram
> 231 Gordon Drive
> Penetanguishene, Ontario L9M 1Y2
> phone: 705-549-3722

Owner Says He Won't Rent to Campground Again after
Storm Swamped 31 Young Kayakers

August 4, 2005

"According to an article in the Minnesota-based Duluth News Tribune,
Brian Carlson, owner of Brule River Canoe Rentals, said that he no longer
plans to rent Lake Superior sea kayaks to a local campground after 23 girls,
ages 9 to 11, were rescued on the lake after a line of intense thunderstorms
and high winds swept the Apostle Island National Lakeshore area. Carlson
stated that, "The girls were probably a little young and not strong enough…"
However, some also question the guides' decision to continue with the trip
despite a forecast predicting stormy weather.

The rescue involved the Bayfield County Sheriff's Department, the U.S.
Coast Guard, Red Cliff Police and the National Park Service. Following
the rescue, Carlson and other employees spent eight hours retrieving 14
kayaks that were spread over three miles of Wisconsin coastline.

The rescue is one of a half-dozen..."

These tragedies of pain and grief, are imminent, always. Death is just
around the corner when canoe and kayak safety is a scam. The willingness
to subject children to agonizing deaths is not a surprising fact, thanks
to the remarkable research of this man:

FEATURE By Thomas Blass, Ph.D. The Man Who Shocked The World Linsly-Chittenden
Hall on Yale’s old campus is easy to miss-an improbable hybrid of Romanesque
and neo-Gothic styles that sits in the shadow of the magnificent clock-arch
straddling High Street. But in July 1961, the building hummed with an unusual
amount of activity as people came and went through its doors at hourly
intervals. The increased traffic was due to the arrival and departure of
participants in an experiment with unexpected findings that would make
it one of the most significant-and controversial-psychological studies
of the 20th century.

The research was the brainchild of 28-year-old Stanley Milgram, then
a recent graduate with a Ph.D. in social psychology from Harvard’s department
of social relations. The name Stanley Milgram may not elicit the kind of
instant recognition as, say, Sigmund Freud. And though he was something
of a Renaissance man, making films and writing poetry, Stanley Milgram
was no Sigmund Freud: He did not attempt an all-encompassing theory of
behavior; no school of thought bears his name. But what he did do-rather
than probe the interior of the human psyche-was to try to expose the external
social forces that, though subtle, have surprisingly powerful effects on
our behavior.

Milgram’s research, like Freud’s, did lead to profound revisions in
some of the fundamental assumptions about human nature. Indeed, by the
fall of 1963, the results of Milgram’s research were making headlines.
He found that an average, presumably normal group of New Haven, Connecticut,
residents would readily inflict very painful and perhaps even harmful electric
shocks on innocent victims. The subjects believed they were part of an
experiment supposedly dealing with the relationship between punishment
and learning. An experimenter-who used no coercive powers beyond a stern
aura of mechanical and vacant-eyed efficiency-instructed participants to
shock a learner by pressing a lever on a machine each time the learner
made a mistake on a word-matching task. Each subsequent error led to an
increase in the intensity of the shock in 15-volt increments, from 15 to
450 volts.

In actuality, the shock box was a well-crafted prop and the learner
an actor who did not actually get shocked. The result: A majority of the
subjects continued to obey to the end-believing they were delivering 450
volt shocks-simply because the experimenter commanded them to. Although
subjects were told about the deception afterward, the experience was a
very real and powerful one for them during the laboratory hour itself.

That year, the headline of an article in the October 26 issue of The
New York Times blared, “Sixty-five Percent in Test Blindly Obey Order to
Inflict Pain.” A week later the St. Louis Post-Dispatch also informed its
readers about the experiments-in an editorial lambasting Milgram and Yale
for the ordeal they put their subjects through. That article marked the
beginning of an enduring ethical controversy stirred up by the experiments
that sometimes overshadowed the substance of the findings.

Those groundbreaking and controversial experiments have had-and continue
to have-long-lasting significance. They demonstrated with jarring clarity
that ordinary individuals could be induced to act destructively even in
the absence of physical coercion, and humans need not be innately evil
or aberrant to act in ways that are reprehensible and inhumane. While we
would like to believe that when confronted with a moral dilemma we will
act as our conscience dictates, Milgram’s obedience experiments teach us
that in a concrete situation with powerful social constraints, our moral
sense can easily be trampled...

It wasn’t just Asch’s work that influenced Milgram. Milgram’s interest
in the study of obedience also emerged out of a continuing identification
with the suffering of fellow Jews at the hands of the Nazis and an attempt
to fathom how the Holocaust could have happened. A poignant illustration
of this can be found in a letter Milgram wrote from France to his schoolmate
John Shaffer in the fall of 1958:

"My true spiritual home is Central Europe, not France, the Mediterranean
countries, England, Scandinavia or Northern Germany, but that area which
is bounded by the cities of Munich, Vienna and Prague.... I should have
been born into the German-speaking Jewish community of Prague in 1922 and
died in a gas chamber some 20 years later. How I came to be born in the
Bronx Hospital, I’ll never quite understand."

During a period of a year, Milgram conducted more than 20 variations
of the basic experiment to see how changing aspects of the experimental
situation might alter subjects’ willingness to obey. Four days after Milgram’s
last participant was studied, the Israeli government, after a lengthy trial,
hanged Adolf Eichmann for his role in the murder of 6 million Jews. The
action seemed to anticipate the important role Milgram’s experiments would
come to play in debates about how to account for the behavior of the Nazi
perpetrators..."